High Street Shops: Illicit Activity

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this excellent debate. The message I take away from it is, “You’ve done some stuff that we think is good, but we need to do a lot more.” This issue is undoubtedly one that we will all be judged on when we next stand before the electorate.

As I have in Croydon, every Member in this place will have experience of a high street that they grew up going to that they know will never again be as they remember it. We also know that we need to tell a new story for our high streets. As shops have closed for all the reasons that Members have outlined, illicit activity has stepped in. It is important to start with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft): we have not only to tackle the criminality, but to establish what we want to do with our town centres. As has been mentioned, there is some innovation across the country where town centres are growing, which is great.

The Government are very aware that we have to understand and appreciate the fact that the town centre of the future will be different, and we need to change laws and do what we can to encourage a new high street. A wider high street strategy is being pulled together at the moment; every Government Department that could possibly be relevant is coming together and asking, “What more can we do to ensure that our high streets can thrive for the businesses we want to see on them, rather than this illicit activity?”

The activity itself has been very well described, and my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) showed leadership in painting us a very good picture of the problems we see nationally. We know there is this increase in shops—I see it on my high street, as everybody does—but people are not in them, so how are they making money? What is going on in that space?

As other Members will have done, I recently joined the raid of a shop in London, which was a big joint operation between trading standards, local authorities and the police, and some of the things I learned were very uncomfortable to hear. For example, an increasing number of builders are being employed by these shop owners to build hidden cupboards so that people can hide their illegal activities. Also, there were lots of cameras in the back of the shop, but they were not there to protect the shop itself; they were to keep an eye on the people working there—these are nasty criminal gangs that want to ensure that the people they employ are not stealing from them. The young lad who was in the shop when we did the raid had nothing to do with the ownership; apparently, the owner was away. As has been mentioned, understanding who owns some of these properties is a complicated and difficult challenge. I am very well aware of the problem that we are trying to fix.

I am very grateful to the many Members who pointed to the important work that the Government have introduced—I do not want to diminish it by saying that we of course need to go further. We have the new high street organised crime unit in the Home Office, as well as the £30 million that has been allocated, in part, to fund the National Crime Agency, and £6 million of which is going to trading standards. Many Members have talked about how the ability of trading standards to respond to today’s challenges has been completely wiped out, so that money will help them. Some £1.5 million has been allocated to immigration enforcement, just to add to all the other work that is happening in immigration—my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked about the connections, which of course exist; just today, there was an immigration raid in my constituency—and £1.5 million is going from that pot to HMRC so that it can do some work on this issue. Members talked about Companies House; there is more work to be done there, for sure.

The closure powers—the closure notice extension to 72 hours and, looking ahead, the longer, 12-month closure—are important, and I am glad that Members have welcomed them. I was very interested in what Members had to say about the Netherlands. As Policing Minister, I do not really get to go on trips, but maybe there should be a Netherlands trip with the campaign group to see what is being done there. In the absence of such a trip, I will certainly read more about how that regime is working. That is a really important point: we should look to other countries and understand what they are doing.

We are open to all of the many good suggestions that Members have made. There is a ministerial group chaired by the new Security Minister; she would have been here, but she could not be, as she is introducing legislation today. I am also on the committee, along with all the Departments that Members would expect to be there. There was a push for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to do work in this space; I know that it is looking at that, and I will certainly talk to it more about that. I will say that all the suggestions that have been made today were mentioned in that first ministerial meeting; we talked about all the same issues. I know we need to go further and faster and we need to push forward, but there was nothing surprising in the suggestions that hon. Members made; these are very sensible things that we are looking at and want to take forward.

There will be big national pushes under Operation Machinize. For obvious reasons, I cannot say when they will be, but Operation Machinize has worked effectively; when all the agencies work together, there is a much more effective outcome. All Members made useful suggestions: more support for trading standards; looking at licensing and more powers for local authorities; data sharing—that is an important suggestion, which I certainly agree with—a place for direct reporting into trading standards, which is an interesting one; and more powers to tackle landlords as well as the organised crime.

The Home Office’s policing reform programme will, I hope, help us tackle these kinds of issues much more effectively. Setting up a national police service could tackle this co-ordinated, serious organised crime in a much better way. At the moment, every time there is a new issue, we have to set up a structure to tackle it at national level. The national police service will be there to do that. It will bring together the National Crime Agency, counter-terrorism and all the other national organisations. We know that some of this money laundering is driving terrorism, for example, and at the moment two different bodies are tackling that. Bringing it all together and having co-ordination at the centre will help.

At the bedrock of our policing policy, we have the commitment to 13,000 more neighbourhood officers on our streets. That will make a significant difference in how people feel about their high streets and in the criminal activity that we are able to tackle. When people mention, for example, kids hanging about outside the illegal shops and doing things that we think they should not be doing, the police will be there to tackle those problems.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen again for securing this debate, and I thank all Members—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

Oh, yes—I forgot to talk about Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope the Minister does not mind my asking, but would she take the time, as she often does on her visits to Northern Ireland, to engage with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long? There are lots of things we can do better together, and we can share ideas, so will the Minister take that opportunity on one of her many visits to Northern Ireland?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, of course. Forgive me; I should have responded to that earlier. The hon. Member also made the point about illicit trade across all our nations, and we need to work together to tackle that as well.

I will end just as I began, by saying that we will be judged on this when we next stand before—

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister accept another intervention?

[Sarah Jones]

I will take one more.

[Gideon Amos]

I am very grateful. I just want to clarify one point about planning controls. Key points were made about whether shops are actually shops if their windows are completely covered. If planning guidance was changed, that might open the way for enforcement under the existing system. Will the Minister get that message through to MHCLG?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, of course. There are several areas for MHCLG to look at, and I know that it is already looking at what more powers we can have to close down the shops and stop them opening in the first place, as well as over the clustering of shops. We need to look at all those issues.

I thank everybody again. I very much get the message that we have started a good piece of work, but there is a lot more to do.

Abuse of Customer-facing Workers

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Members might be pleased to know that I probably will not take all the time available to me—perhaps I will give them a few minutes of their life back to do something else.

I want to start by saying what an important debate this is. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) is absolutely right to bring the issue of the abuse of shop workers to this place. It is enormously important, and many Members of Parliament have campaigned for many years for the legislation that we have just passed, alongside the incredible work of the Co-op, USDAW and others. When I was shadow Policing Minister, I remember introducing a similar amendment to Government legislation and debating it with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was the Policing Minister at the time. He argued that there was no need for these measures, because abuse of a shop worker is an aggravating factor, and that the evidence did not support their introduction. That argument was wrong, and I am really pleased that we have passed this law.

It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said throughout his speech, we need to make sure we are implementing the legislation and seeing results, and that we use it now that we have it. It sends a powerful message that we in this place see and understand this behaviour, and that we will not tolerate it any more. It is important that we say that loud and clear.

The speeches made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) were really important and spoke to the nub of the problem. The hon. Member for Strangford said that people feel that the system has abandoned them, and that is right. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), also spoke about the way in which people who live by the rules feel that everybody else seems to be getting away with not living by the rules. That has wider consequences for our society than just the problem of retail crime and the abuse of shop workers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter spoke of a very serious case in which somebody was doused with liquid and then threatened with being set on fire. That is horrific. The abuse that shop workers receive, which was mentioned by the spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), ranges from those very extreme cases to the abuse that people get every day. I remember talking to shop workers at my local Co-op about the abuse they faced. Someone said, “Well, it’s just part of the job.” No, it is not. It needs to stop and we need to make sure we are doing all the right things.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister does fantastic work in her area. Will she join me in commending the work that organisations and charities such as Victim Support do to help people who find themselves in the horrendous situation that she outlined and that we have heard about from Members across the Chamber? Will she elaborate on the support she and her colleagues in other Departments give to people who work in shops and other customer-facing roles?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member is right that Victim Support and other organisations give really important support to people in such situations. Across different Departments, we all have a role to play in trying to stop this abuse and the retail crime that goes alongside so much of it. I will go into that in more detail.

First, I will set out the statistics on shop theft, which drives a lot of the abuse that we see and is often perpetrated by prolific offenders. In the year before we came to power, there was a 30% rise in shop theft, and in the past year there has been a 1% fall. A 1% fall does not sound great, but when we compare it with a 30% rise, it shows that we are completely turning the tide. I know that members of the public will say, “Well, that’s just statistics; that’s not my experience,” and it will take us a while to make people feel safer and tackle the huge problem that we still have. I want to reassure Members that—my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about this—because of the policing interventions that we have done and because of what a lot of shops have done, we are beginning to turn the tide on shop theft. That is important.

A lot of the larger retailers admittedly have more funds to do this, but the Co-operative Group, for example, has done incredible things to design out crime in its shops, and it has seen the biggest fall compared with other retailers. Lots of others are doing interesting things, whether that is having live facial recognition; designing out the ability for people to get behind the shop counter and steal some of the alcohol that might be there; having cameras on shop workers; or having security people. All those things are undoubtedly making a difference, and so is the ability of our police to respond.

We have been clear with our wonderful police that we want them in our neighbourhoods tackling this type of crime. We have already seen over 3,000 more police in our neighbourhoods, and we have committed to having 13,000. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson talked about police numbers. The previous Government cut 20,000 police and then recruited 20,000 police, but they put 12,000 of them behind desks. Our measure is not about exact numbers—we want 13,000 more police in our communities, and we want outcomes. That is what we are driving towards. There are other things that we can do and that we are doing in this space that will also make a difference, and we will keep striving to do more.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent talked about technology, databases and wanting to cut bureaucracy for our police. I 100% agree with that. Last week, we launched PoliceAI with £75 million of funding to use AI to take away some of the nonsense bureaucracy that our police have to do. I have given it two first tasks in relation to outward-facing technology: one is to tackle tool theft and the other is to tackle retail crime. There are lots of quite good systems that different parts of the country are using to more easily record shop theft and upload imagery and CCTV. We want to design AI that can read across all of those so that the police can easily see and bring together who the prolific offenders are.

There was talk of prolific offenders in this debate, and it is true that a small cohort of people are responsible for a large amount of retail crime and abuse against shop workers. They are often people with very complex needs—they will have an addiction; they will be drug addicts or alcoholics—and we in the Home Office are designing a programme to target those prolific offenders.

Some areas do that already, and people have been doing it increasingly, but there are things that we can put in place to help us really target that prolific cohort, whether that is providing the support they need to get into treatment or more interventions to make sure they cannot do what they want to. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said that we should be doing more to use things like orders to stop people coming into a community, or tagging. I think we need to be using all of those more, and we are designing a programme of work to do exactly that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked if I would meet USDAW, and I am always very happy to do that. I have done so many times, but it is probably timely that I meet it again now that the Crime and Policing Act has been passed. He also asked how we would measure progress. We will measure what happens with the absolute numbers and the reporting of these issues, and whether people are reporting—whether that is through USDAW or our links in the retail sector. We will measure it through the crime statistics and what is happening as a result.

My hon. Friend also asked, importantly, why the provision is defined as being just about shop workers and why we did not make it wider to include transport workers or people who work in banks, for example. We deliberately kept it narrow to avoid any ambiguity in the courts. I know people disagree with that, but we just have to agree to disagree; that is what we have done in the legislation. However, if the legislation makes a marked difference, which we hope it will, of course we will need to look at whether the provision should apply elsewhere.

I have met representatives from banks, and I have had conversations about the particular challenges they have. They face the problem of abuse—I do not want to deny that—but the frequent protests they are increasingly experiencing are a slightly different issue, and one that we are talking to them about to try to support them through.

With the number of police in our communities going up; with the new rule that all thefts under £200 have to be investigated; with the new tech, IT and AI that can help us read across all these different systems; with the law in place; with the police giving a strong message that we want to see people punished for abusing shop workers; and with the work that we are beginning to do on prolific offenders, hopefully we will increasingly see results. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and everybody here has made is that we cannot accept this as normal behaviour—it is not. We will not tolerate it, and we will keep working until we tackle it.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Will she comment on something that I have witnessed on social media: the filming of shop workers in customer-facing roles to generate content and clicks? That is pervasive and nasty in nature. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what the Government could do to tackle that issue?

[Sarah Jones]

There is a wider question about social media and how it sometimes drives these kinds of behaviours. People are almost goading each other to do more extreme activities—I have heard about that in a number of areas. This week, I was told about a new trend that I find utterly extraordinary: people are breaking into houses, filming someone asleep, and then leaving and putting that on social media. That is horrific. They do not take anything or do anything, but they are basically competing with each other to do that. Clearly, we are having a national debate, and the Government have taken action, about the issue of under-16s, but there is a much bigger debate still to have about social media and how it is driving these kinds of behaviours.

Having said that I would be brief, I seem not to have been as brief as I expected. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on his powerful speech and on securing this really good debate. He should be assured that the Government are on the side of people who just want to do their job, and who should not be abused while they are doing that job. That is not acceptable, and we will keep doing what we can.

West Midlands Police: Government Support

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and a pleasure to talk about policing, which is one of the most important aspects of any Government’s function—it is certainly the priority of this Government. When we came to power in 2024, we committed to reform policing because at the moment it is not fit for purpose. Our constituents feel, rightly, that they need a proper response to the epidemic of everyday crime in our communities. They know, and the police tell us, that we need to be better equipped to tackle the serious organised crime and sophisticated online crime increasing at regional, national and global levels.

The police, who are some of the most brilliant people in our country and do an incredible job, tell us that the technology they have is creaking at the seams. They cannot work as effectively as they want to because they do not have the necessary infrastructure or systems around them. Everything is complicated by layers of bureaucracy because databases are so out of date. I want to help our police officers and to be held accountable by our communities to improve policing. I am delighted that we have the support of most elements of policing for our police reform agenda, including the senior police to whom we speak every day. All the different organisations involved in policing agree that the structure is not right and we need to change it, so we are bringing in legislation soon to do that.

At the heart of everything we do is a commitment to improving the local policing offer. Above all else, we have to fulfil that commitment. We must establish local policing areas that are enabled to drive down crime, as the public rightly expect them to do. We will also have a regional structure that brings together some of the more sophisticated elements of our criminal investigations and has the manpower to do such investigations. At the top, we will have a national police service that brings together counter-terrorism, serious organised crime and many other functions of policing, so that it can set the standard for what policing should be.

Alongside that, we will make policing more accountable —the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about accountability in policing—through a new structure for inspection and performance assessment, so that we have our eyes wide open to the challenges in each force area and we have the levers to improve performance where needed. He talked about his local police force. To reassure him on a few issues, he and I, and all hon. Members in this Chamber, would agree that we must ensure that our local police have the resources they need. This year, West Midlands police has £883 million in funding, which is a significant increase of £36.9 million on last year.

The hon. Gentleman quoted police numbers going back to 2010. I hope he appreciates that we cannot transform the numbers overnight, given the picture that he painted, and hope that he will be pleased that our priority is to make sure that we have more police in our neighbourhoods. Since last year there are, I think, 309 more full-time officers in west midlands neighbourhoods than there were before. There has been a small overall increase in the number of police officers but a bigger increase in the number of officers who are in our communities, where we believe they should be.

Through the funding formula and direct money from Government, we are trying to incentivise more neighbourhood police. That is what our populations want, so that is where we are putting our resources. The 3,000 additional police officers and police and community support officers in our communities will begin to make a difference, but I am not for one minute suggesting that is enough. Our ambition is to have 13,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods by the end of this Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will hold us to account on that ambition. Achieving it will be no easy feat, but we believe that it will transform how we do policing at local level because the police will be visible locally, able to gather intelligence about problems that are emerging, and able to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime.

Like other parts of the country, the west midlands has particular challenges, which we are responding to with the funding we provide. The serious violence programmes that we fund amount to £5 million for West Midlands police. The knife crime concentrations fund, which is the continuation of the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a targeted fund aimed at tackling the very serious epidemic of knife crime that we know we must tackle in the communities where knife crime happens. There is a significant challenge in the west midlands, as there is in other parts of the country, and £2.8 million from the knife crime concentrations fund is going to the West Midlands police to enable targeted policing. There is also £5.4 million from the county lines programme, which enables us to join up across forces to understand the patterns of the lines that people are being coerced into running. On the one hand we do investigations to stop the criminals, and on the other hand we try to safeguard the kids being coerced into carrying drugs across county lines.

I know the hon. Gentleman will expect the Government to provide the support for the police that he rightly demands, but taken together, we have by some measure put extra money into funding the West Midlands police this year. Over and above that, we are using the resources we have to target the serious crime that we know is a problem in the west midlands, as in other parts of the country. I am focused on outcomes, rather than on the number of officers—although we are bringing a lot more officers into the neighbourhoods—and there are some quite good crime outcomes in the west midlands, not least the reduction in knife crime, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for West Midlands Police.

Orphines: Temporary Class Drug Order

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering this Government’s missions by making our streets safer, improving our nation’s health, breaking down barriers to opportunities for all and supporting economic growth.

In the last year orphines, a class of lethal synthetic opioids, have emerged in the UK. The National Crime Agency and Office for Health Improvement and Disparities have reported that in England alone there have been more than 15 confirmed deaths in which orphines were involved since the spring of 2025. The OHID’s National Drug Treatment Monitoring System data shows that 12 of these were in the period September to December 2025, including five in December.

I am today laying a temporary class drug order before Parliament, under section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This will control seven named orphines. Three of the seven have been identified as being involved in deaths in the UK; the other four were notified by the EU Drugs Agency as being present in EU drugs markets. This is in line with a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for whose recent report on orphines I am grateful.

The TCDO will make it easier for law enforcement to take action against those supplying orphines. It will make it a specific offence to supply, offer to supply, produce, possess with intent to supply, import or export these seven substances. The maximum sentence will be 14 years’ imprisonment.

The TCDO comes into force tomorrow, and lasts for a year, unless the substances named within it are, before then, permanently controlled under the 1971 Act. I intend to lay before Parliament in due course a draft Order in Council which would, if agreed by Parliament, enact such a permanent control by making these substances class A drugs.

These substances are not believed to have legitimate uses, but should someone need to make legitimate use of them, for example for research purposes, they will be able to apply to the Home Office for a licence.

We will continue to support law enforcement agencies in taking action against these and other harmful drugs, to protect our communities.

[HCWS105]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

2. What discussions she has had with the Metropolitan police on the policing of the Unite the Kingdom rally on 16 May 2026.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

There were several large-scale events in London on 16 May, the Unite the Kingdom rally being one of them. I had several briefings with the Met, who took a robust approach to the Unite the Kingdom rally, and I was in the control room on 16 May to see the operation for myself.

[Douglas McAllister]

What happens in our capital city has a knock-on effect across our entire country. My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Lindsey, contacted me to express her deep concern and shock at the abhorrent displays at the Unite the Kingdom rally. Participants openly incited racial hatred in inflammatory speeches but, more significantly, there were provocative Islamophobic stunts, involving mocking the religious dress of Muslim women. I understand those responsible were not arrested and I share my constituents’ disgust. Is the Minister satisfied with the Metropolitan police response? What future action will be considered to prevent a recurrence?

[Sarah Jones]

The Metropolitan Police Service maintained public order and kept Londoners safe on a day when there was an unprecedented number of large-scale events. Some 43 arrests were made at the Unite the Kingdom rally and the Nakba 78: March for Palestine. In advance, 11 foreign nationals were prevented from entering the UK to speak at the event and were prevented by the Met from broadcasting to the event. Of course I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend’s constituent raises, but the Metropolitan police, with their 4,000 officers on that day, did a very good job.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Many in the Muslim community are feeling bewildered, besieged and beleaguered. When they exercise their democratic right to vote and the results do not go a certain way, they are accused of sectarianism. When they take to the streets to protest peacefully against genocide, they are accused of going on hate marches, all the while witnessing not one but two Unite the Kingdom marches, where there were open calls for their expulsion from this country, which are met with apparent indifference. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect the Muslim community from further alienation and what message does she send to those who incite hatred against them?

[Sarah Jones]

This Government are committed to tackling all forms of hate crime, including anti-Muslim hostility. We are actively seeking to ensure the safety and protection of all individuals and communities. The UK has a proud tradition of racial and religious tolerance within the law, and this Government are absolutely committed to building the strong and integrated society that we all want to see.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Last week, I met one of my constituents who had faced horrible racist abuse on the train home from people who had been on the Unite the Kingdom rally. As someone of mixed white and middle eastern heritage, she told me that for the first time she felt scared in her own country. Does the Minister agree with me that we have a responsibility to tackle racial division across our country and not to ignite the situation, and that when the leader of Reform UK takes to the airwaves in the aftermath of heightened racial tensions to tell the public that they must react with “pure cold rage”, it is people such as my constituent who pay the price?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend’s story about her constituent will not be the only one we hear about. I notice that Reform UK is quick to slam into the television stations as soon as something occurs, but its Members do not then come to this place to debate it in the normal way. Members of this House and those beyond have a critical role to play in building the strong and integrated society that we all want to see, one that is not fuelled by hatred and division.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I think the Minister speaks for the whole House in thanking the Metropolitan police for policing riots and protests that go beyond the realms of what is legally appropriate or acceptable, and that should happen to everybody, whatever the subject of their protest. Does the Minister agree that the rules on donations to fund these rallies—one of the organisers of the rallies, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has thanked his donors, is a prominent member of a political party—should apply to the organisers as much as they do to anybody involved in politics, and that those donations should be declared with the transparency expected by this House and my constituents? Does the Minister agree that anybody receiving money from domestic or foreign sources should declare it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

5. What discussions her Department has had with police forces on the adequacy of competitive tendering for trials of AI.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

As with all new technology, decisions about procuring and using AI are a matter for operationally independent chief constables. The Home Office is supporting the police to adopt AI rapidly and responsibly, with £115 million of investment over the next three years. That includes investing in the national centre for AI, which will help the police make informed decisions.

[Martin Wrigley]

Palantir appears to have a habit of avoiding competitive tender and scrutiny by using free trials and locking up the contract specifications after getting a foot in the door. I congratulate the London Mayor on stopping the recent potential contract offered by the Met police without a competitive tender process. However, last week, the estimated £17 million contract for the National Firearms Licensing Management System was won by a bid from Palantir of just £7.5 million, just 44% of the expected price. That suggests either a massive error in estimation, or Palantir buying the job, giving it unfettered access to whisper in the ear of all 43 police forces. Will the Minister pause the signing of that contract, which is due this Thursday, so that appropriate scrutiny can take place to ensure that a competitive tendering process has been followed transparently?

[Sarah Jones]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Palantir is not buying the job. In the Home Office we have very robust processes, which were followed in full. The current licence management system is approaching the end of its life, and it is very important that we have a good one to maintain safety. There was an open and competitive process, run by the Police Digital Service and BlueLight Commercial, which do these things on behalf of policing. The hon. Gentleman is right that the contract is yet to be signed, but Palantir is the preferred supplier and all the right processes were followed.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new legal framework around facial recognition technology. We have seen successful trials of this in Harlow, but does the Minister agree it is essential that that technology is deployed lawfully, proportionately and with accountability, and that that is taken into account when any Government contract is granted?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend that live facial recognition is an extraordinarily innovative new technology that helps us catch really nasty criminals in my constituency and in other parts of the country, and we are investing in it through our police reform agenda. We are also legislating for it, because we totally recognise that there is some uncertainty about what it is used for and how it should be used. We want to put that right, be really clear about it, and put it on the face of legislation.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

6. When she plans to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Through our Crime and Policing Act 2026 we have new and enhanced powers to enable local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour offenders, and our neighbourhood policing guarantee has ensured that every police force in England and Wales now has a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead and a local action plan to crack down on offenders who blight our communities.

[Jim Dickson]

Residents of Darenth and other parts of my constituency are facing persistent nuisance owing to the antisocial riding of motorbikes and quad bikes in local woodlands over the last few years. I know from my conversations with the new district commander for Dartford and Gravesham that the police are starting to use the powers in the Crime and Policing Act to seize and crush vehicles and issue community protection notices to offenders. Can the Minister tell Dartford residents how those new powers, and other Government measures, will finally tackle this antisocial behaviour at source?

[Sarah Jones]

I think we all share the hunger to tackle this awful crime, which blights communities. Through the Crime and Policing Act, we have strengthened police powers to swiftly seize vehicles that are used antisocially. We have stripped away the requirement to issue a warning, which enables officers to act immediately to take vehicles off the streets, and we are introducing new respect orders, which can tackle persistent offenders in this and other areas. We have just carried out a consultation, and will shortly be looking at what we can do to shorten the period for police dispersal so that these things can be crushed more quickly.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

In my constituency and across the country we have seen a troubling rise in violence towards wildlife, often with the use of catapults. Wildlife crime is not an isolated incident; it is usually related to something else. Studies have shown that seven out of 10 victims of domestic violence who owned pets said that their domestic abusers were also threatening, harming or killing those pets. Will the Minister please look at Holly’s law, which would create an animal cruelty register to deter wildlife crime, which often leads to other violent crimes?

[Sarah Jones]

We will certainly look at any proposals to tackle wildlife crime. I know that the use of catapults is a particular issue. This week I shall be holding a roundtable with a number of interested parties, including people who will, I suspect, be saying the same thing as the hon. Lady. We fund the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit, which provides more resources for this purpose, but we will certainly keep all options on the table.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

11. What recent progress her Department has made on implementing the violence against women and girls strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

T4. Organised car crime has affected residents in Beckenham and Penge for many years, with cars stolen to order and quickly shipped abroad. What powers and support have been given to the police to crack down on vehicle theft, and how is the Minister working with manufacturers to ensure that modern vehicles are harder to steal?

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Around half of vehicle crime involves manipulation of signals from remote devices. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, we have criminalised the possession, importation, making, adapting and supplying of the electronic devices used to commit vehicle theft, which will make a real difference in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T2.    Dorset police is among the 10 worst-funded forces in the country. It faces higher operating costs due to our rural geography and, during the summer, has to contend with a population that increases by 40%. It has already had to make cuts worth £2.8 million over the past three years. Will the Secretary of State reform the police funding formula to properly account for rurality, lower council tax growth and seasonality?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is a bit behind the times; we have already announced that we are reforming that formula.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Academics, professionals and environmentalists have experienced dozens of arrests and yet no charges have been upheld. At a recent vigil for the trees, there were more police than protesters. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the over-policing of my constituents, who are literally standing up for nature, and ensure that we see off these draconian Tory policies, which over-egg the policing needed for environmentalists?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question—[Interruption.] The right to peaceful protest and public assembly is one that we must protect, but it must be balanced with the need to maintain public order and keep the public safe. Perhaps she could write to me with further detail. If she wants to have a meeting to talk about it, I would be very happy to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just want to help the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The Minister was answering, and you walked straight across both of us—not that I should need to explain that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

T6. There has been an exponential rise in the use of e-scooters, which are incredibly dangerous—some can reach speeds of up to 17 mph. The police have told me that at the moment they are having to adapt existing powers and that there is a lack of central guidance. Will the Minister outline whether more central guidance is forthcoming on the apprehension of individuals using e-scooters?

[Sarah Jones]

I am working closely with the Department for Transport on the challenges with e-scooters and the use of e-bikes, which I know many Members across the House will have. Making sure that we have more neighbourhood police in our communities is the absolute core of the issue, and that is what the Government are delivering.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)]

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute back to the Home Secretary, who has worked incredibly hard on the issues on which the Government made their announcement today. The BBC carries the headline that we will stop children sending and receiving images; can she say for the House that the change will also stop children ever taking naked images of themselves, and give us an assurance that her Department is working on robust legislation and a legislative vehicle to make sure that can happen?

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

T7.   In the last three years, the number of Metropolitan police officers has fallen by 3,000, and it is now at a lower level than it was in May 2016, when Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Overall crime in London has increased by 26% and knife crime is up by 27%. It is true that policing in London is partially devolved, but over 70% of the funding to the Metropolitan police comes from the Home Office, and that makes the Home Secretary a key player. What is she doing to reverse the dismal decline that we have seen in Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure?

[Sarah Jones]

The murder rate is at its lowest level ever recorded in London. The police have more money and more resources to tackle crime, and we are working closely with them as they do that. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that when his party’s Government recruited police officers, they put them behind desks. We are putting them on our streets, fighting crime.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

With the news that the Stradey Park hotel has now gone into receivership, what assurances can the Minister give my constituents in Llanelli that his Department has no plans to use the premises for asylum seeker accommodation?

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

My constituents hate seeing organised shoplifting taking place with apparent impunity. Norfolk police recognises this and has identified suspects in more than a third of all cases, but what is the point when the Government’s assumption is that any sentence shorter than 12 months will automatically be suspended? What are the Government going to do about it?

[Sarah Jones]

We are making some progress in this space. It may seem small, but there was a 1% fall in shop theft offences last year, and a 30% increase in the last year of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, so we are making progress. In particular, we are working hard on how we target prolific offenders more. We are using new technology and of course working with the private sector. Our Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced new powers, so we are going to tackle shop theft in a way that the previous Government did not. We are also launching the centre for AI soon, which will give us new technology that we can use. We are bearing down on shop theft.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Sadly, last week Dudley town centre fell victim to vandalism again. The new central seating area was damaged, impacting local businesses and footfall. I welcome the Government’s efforts to restore neighbourhood policing and our new police station, but what further steps will the Minister take to tackle antisocial behaviour and to take criminals off our streets and allow businesses to operate safely?

[Sarah Jones]

We are working hard to introduce respect orders, which will be really important in this space. I am happy to visit my hon. Friend to see exactly what the problems are and what we can do, but we are introducing whatever powers we can to tackle “low-level” antisocial behaviour—that is what the previous Government called it—which actually blights our communities.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), but the reality is that every day shopkeepers are facing abuse and threats and being stolen from. A direct consequence of the presumption in the Sentencing Act 2026 that those with a sentence of 12 months or less will not face prison is that there is no deterrent. Can the Minister genuinely say that our streets are safer as a result?

[Sarah Jones]

First, we have introduced a new offence of assaulting a shop worker, which the previous Government failed to do. We are using every single tool in our armoury. Unfortunately, the previous Government did not provide the prison places they promised, so we have to deal with the situation as we find it.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The role of faith liaison officer is extremely important in Lewisham, but the post has been deleted. The officer is important with regard to preventing extremism and building community cohesion: they meet with faith leaders and have been integral to the inter-faith peace walk. I ask the Minister to look again at the role and see what more can be done. This is important not just for Lewisham but across the Met area and, indeed, across the country.

[Sarah Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, that is a decision for the Met in terms of how it allocates its resources, but I hear what she said. In the light of the tensions we have faced in recent months, I am sure there is a role for policing in building relationships with our faith communities.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Every few weeks, assorted far-right activists descend on my peaceful city of Perth to holler abuse at asylum seekers placed in hotels by the Home Office. They come tanked up on misinformation and loathing, and the people of Perth are getting thoroughly sick of it. Some who attend have even been served with bans in their own communities, yet they roll up in Perth. What will the Home Secretary do about these individuals? Will she consider something like buffer zones between the protesters and the hotels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has publicly thanked the donors who funded the recent Unite the Kingdom marches, which needed a significant police presence. We have heard mention several times this afternoon of equality before the law, so does the Home Secretary agree that the laws regarding the reporting of donations, both from the UK and from overseas, apply to members of all political parties equally?

[Sarah Jones]

Transparency underscores democracy, and we need to make sure we have that. Of course, we will talk to our colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government who run elections to make sure we are doing everything we should be doing.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

The horticultural sector in Cornwall is worth about £100 million a year, but it is reliant on the seasonal worker scheme. The scheme numbers are announced annually at the end of the year, but the daffodil season in Cornwall begins in January. Will Ministers meet me to discuss an earlier announcement and a two-year rolling scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituent, Richard, has been unable to work for four months because of Disclosure and Barring Service delays. Things are getting desperate at home, and he faces the prospect of defaulting on his mortgage this month. There has been a 10-month delay from the point of application to now. Will one of the Front-Bench team look at his case in particular, to help him out, but also try to take a hand of the DBS more generally?

[Sarah Jones]

I am certainly happy to look at that particular case. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could write to me and I will look into it.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As if the Government’s announcement on watering down the provisions of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 were not disappointing enough, the secondary legislation to enact what is left of it still has not been tabled. Where is it?

[Sarah Jones]

It is a shame: the hon. Gentleman is much nicer when we meet personally than he is in the Chamber. He knows that we are working on that, and he knows that we will do it as soon as we can, but I am happy to have another conversation with him.

[Edward Morello]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my topical question earlier, I asked the Minister whether the Department would reform the police funding formula to account for seasonality and rurality. The Minister said that that announcement had already been made; actually, only a review of the funding formula has been announced. Can you give me guidance, Mr Speaker, on how I can get information on what will be included?

Draft Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Following EU exit, the Government have been reviewing retained EU law to ensure that it functions clearly and effectively within the UK domestic framework. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The regulations were laid on 25 March 2026 using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.

The regulations make technical amendments to retained EU legislation relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. They preserve existing animal protection safeguards, responsibilities and enforcement powers within a clear UK legislative framework, and assure transparency of operation. They do not create new permissions for animal testing, nor do they reduce the rigorous standards that establishments and individuals licensed to use animals for scientific purposes must meet.

The UK operates one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, founded on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that framework, animals may be used only when there is no viable alternative, with the number of animals used kept to the minimum necessary and with methods refined to reduce suffering. Those requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, inspection, audit and enforcement by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Alongside the primary legislation, animal welfare standards are supported by the code of practice for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence. The regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework, so that the same high standards continue to apply.

The use of animals in science attracts significant public interest, and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision in which animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. That is why, in November 2025, we published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, backed by £75 million of investment to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. It includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, to create a preclinical translational models’ hub, and to expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.

At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system. That is exactly what the regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when truly necessary.

The regulations provide legal clarity, following EU exit, to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank Members for their brief but excellent contributions. On how we will work with DSIT and continue to improve experimentation on animals to make sure that we always push the standards we need to push, there is a whole package of work in the £75 million plan we have announced that will take us further and faster. Many colleagues across the House have campaigned for something called Herbie’s law, and measures in our reforms include timebound action plans, progress reporting and public expert advisory committees.

There is a whole programme of work, but the three Rs—replacement, refinement and reduction—bind together everything we do in respect of animal testing. We cannot use animals in research unless we absolutely have to. As the research and technology improve, we will use animals less. We have to use the minimum number of animals through the reduction process, and we have to use the experiments that cause the least harm through the refinement programme.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about ASPA; we have set up a cross-departmental ministerial team to deliver the strategy, led by my colleague Lord Hanson, with Lord Vallance and with Baroness Hayman from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that reassures Members and, once again, commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.

[Sarah Jones]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft regulations and the draft order, which were both laid before Parliament on 26 February, will address the harms caused by illegal drugs, which do terrible damage to health and to communities. Acquisitive crime and 50% of homicides are linked to drugs, and drug deaths reached 3,500 in 2024.

Although many drug precursor chemicals have legitimate industrial uses, they are also used to make illegal drugs. We therefore control DPCs in two ways. The first, which the draft regulations are concerned with, seeks to reduce the risk of DPCs that are used legitimately in industry being diverted to producing illicit drugs. The second, which the draft order is concerned with, is through measures to tackle the deliberate illicit use of DPCs to produce drugs.

I turn first to the draft regulations. Companies must generally obtain licences or other authorisations to use DPCs. In most cases, they must maintain proper records of consignments, and they must always notify the National Crime Agency where they suspect diversion of DPCs for illicit use. Before Brexit, those requirements were set by the EU; since Brexit, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, while a similar regime operates in Great Britain as assimilated law.

The draft regulations will amend deficiencies in that assimilated law. For example, Ministers lack effective powers to control new DPCs in Great Britain, so no new chemicals have been controlled there since January 2021. The EU has added 10 DPCs and 14 related substances since then; those controls apply in Northern Ireland, but not in Great Britain. The substances are used to manufacture MDMA—commonly known as ecstasy—and fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. All of them, except amphetamine, are class A drugs. The draft regulations will therefore ensure that the requirements on companies that make legitimate use of DPCs in Great Britain apply to those 10 DPCs and the related substances. They will also provide powers to control additional substances in Great Britain in future.

The draft regulations will also provide a statutory mechanism to control movements of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such controls help to prevent diversion of DPCs and ensure that we meet our international obligations. We will not require companies to pay fees to do so, however; this is to ensure that there are no unnecessary impediments to free trade within this country.

Lastly, although companies are already required to keep records and report concerns in respect of a wide range of chemicals, the criminal penalties for failing to do so cover a smaller group of substances. The draft regulations will ensure that the rules and the penalties relating to documentation and reporting apply to all chemicals that are controlled under the regulations.

I turn to the draft order, which will add 12 DPCs and 16 related substances to the list of substances that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. As I say, those DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine or methamphetamine. The UN controlled those substances between March 2014 and March 2024. The legislation should have been updated sooner; I have written to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to address its concerns about the causes of the delay.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the draft regulations, which corrects two minor typographical errors. First, a reference to “United Kingdom” has now been changed to “the United Kingdom”. Secondly, the original draft referred to the “third place” the phrase “countries of destination” appeared in the text; it should have read “second place”, as there was no third.

I commend the draft regulations and the draft order to the Committee as instruments that will provide the Government with further means to tackle the illicit drugs that cause harm to so many.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank hon. Members for their comments, for agreeing with the legislation and for making some helpful points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, is right to say that we must make sure that the list is as current as it can be. He is also right that with all the new synthetic drugs that are sadly becoming more prevalent in this country, we must make sure that we are absolutely on top of their use, which is where the draft regulations will apply.

The shadow Minister mentioned the EU and Northern Ireland, and the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will remove regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the same DPCs will now be controlled in both, as I hope he will recognise.

The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, both asked why it has taken so many years to get to this point. I wrote in some detail to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in March, and I am happy to provide colleagues with a copy of that letter. Obviously I cannot comment on decisions made by previous Ministers, but we have been working to rectify this matter since the general election. The perm sec is taking responsibility for making sure that we have the right logs in place in the Home Office, so that where legislation needs to be updated over time, we are completely aligned with that and alive to it.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills suggested that we have taken our time since the election, but we have worked through these things as quickly as we can. We previously introduced generic controls on nitazenes, which was incredibly important, and we are working through these things as fast as we can.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members. I am very happy to provide my letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee if members of this Committee would like it, but I think I have covered all the issues that have been raised. I acknowledge those issues and hope that hon. Members will support these two very important pieces of legislation.

[Matt Vickers]

Has any advice been received on the appropriate approach to past charging?

[Sarah Jones]

On past charging, we are offering repayments. We think the cost of those repayments will be about £3,000 in total. It is quite a small amount, but we are making that available to people.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL) (CO-OPERATION) ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2026

Resolved, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.

Biometrics Commissioner Valedictory Report: 2024-25

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the valedictory report of the Biometrics Commissioner, Francesca Whitelaw KC.

The Biometrics Commissioner is appointed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and provides independent oversight of the retention and use of biometric material by the police and other authorities.

This report covers casework data from January 2024 to March 2025 and includes reflections on the commissioner’s interim tenure from July to October 2025. It provides transparency on the oversight of national security determinations and applications made under section 63G of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and sets out recommendations for operational improvements.

The report does not contain material requiring exclusion for reasons of national security or public interest.

The report has been laid before the House and will be available from the Vote Office and on gov.uk.

[HCWS39]

Firearms Licensing Fees

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

The Government are today laying a statutory instrument before Parliament to introduce increases in firearms licensing fees by the rate of inflation to ensure that these fees continue to provide full cost recovery for the police. These increases follow the comprehensive review of, and increases to, firearms licensing fees in February 2025. The new fees come into effect from 4 June 2026.

The fees are increasing by 3%, in line with the consumer prices index, for all statutory firearms licensing fees, based on Office for National Statistics CPI figures for the 12 months to February 2026.

[HCWS1555]

Crime and Policing Bill

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motion:

That this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.

[Sarah Jones]

It is with regret that we return to the Lords amendments to this Bill. The elected House has made its views crystal clear on the issues before us. We have already voted twice, by substantial margins, to reject the Lords amendments. It is time for the considered views of this House to prevail. Let me deal briefly with the two remaining issues before us.

In our earlier debates, I have been clear that the Government agree that the enforcement of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices must be proportionate. Fixed penalty notices must never simply be seen as a money spinner for enforcement agencies, but as an appropriate and proportionate means of tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. We will make this distinction absolutely clear in our statutory guidance. To this end, we have already agreed amendments to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must address the proportionate use of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons. I know the Liberal Democrats want early action on this, so we have brought forward a further amendment to provide that such guidance must be issued within six months of Royal Assent.

It is particularly regrettable that the Opposition have returned yet again to Lords amendment 359, albeit in modified form. The amendment is simply unworkable, and it is wholly contrary to the approach taken by successive Governments to the exercise of the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe terrorist organisations. There is no more important duty on the Government than to safeguard this country from terrorist attack, but requiring the Government to in effect give a running commentary on whether any organisation linked to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed does not for one moment add to our security. Their lordships can keep insisting on this amendment, but our response will be the same. This is not an amendment that any responsible Government can or should entertain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the papers today, there are pictures of six ladies who are going to be executed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is in charge in Iran, because they protested in the streets for liberty and freedom. For those six ladies whose lives are on the line and for the millions of people in Iran who want freedom, I think the Government should proscribe the IRGC, and they should not delay in doing so. I say respectfully to the Minister that it is time to face the realities we have in this world.

[Sarah Jones]

None of us would say for one second that we are anything other than appalled by what we see happening in Iran. None of us supports the Iranian Government and none of us supports the IRGC. We have sanctioned over 550 individuals and organisations, including the IRGC, to prevent them from coming here and to take their assets where we can do so. The point is that this Parliament is not the place for a Government to say one way or the other what they are going to proscribe or not proscribe. That is not the way government is done in this country, and it is not the way we are going to operate now. However, I get the hon. Gentleman’s point for sure. None of us supports the IRGC or anything it does, and we are appalled by the very significant, awful number of deaths we have seen in recent times and, indeed, over many years.

In conclusion, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill. We have already rejected the Lords amendments on two occasions, with majorities of well over 100. Let us send these amendments back to the Lords, hopefully for one last time.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Those in the other place have asked us to reconsider Lords amendments 439E and 439F, which compel the Home Secretary to review the proscription of groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, including the IRGC.

There can be absolutely no doubt about the threat that Iran and its proxies pose to this country and our national security. In 2015, terrorists linked to Iran were caught stockpiling explosives on the outskirts of London. In 2020, amid protests in Iran, the IRGC sought to assassinate two journalists on British soil. Just last year, the IRGC was linked to an attempted attack on the Israeli embassy in Kensington, which was foiled by counter-terrorism police. The organisation has been linked to at least 20 credible threats in the UK.

Even beyond the direct risk posed by IRGC terrorism, the organisation is responsible for funding and supporting other extreme groups in this country, and has worked closely with criminal gangs to undermine our national security. We will be able to combat that threat only if we are willing to tackle it head-on, using every power available to us to do so. To that end, the very least we can do is make it harder for Islamist extremist groups to operate legally in this country. By proscribing the IRGC and other groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, Ministers would be able to protect not only those being attacked—actually, it is our Jewish community that we are really thinking about at this difficult time. These Lords amendments can only be a good thing. They would help to strengthen those protections.

When Labour Members were on the Opposition Benches, many of them agreed. In April 2024, the now Foreign Secretary called for exactly this policy. Yet now, they are refusing even to review the proscription of groups such as the IRGC, which fuel the Islamist cause and are directly linked to the Iranian armed forces. I urge the Minister and her colleagues on the Government Benches to change their minds and accept the Lords amendments. The threat is far too grave to be ignored. By burying their heads in the sand, they will not make the problem go away; they will only put our country and its people more at risk.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I recognise that, since the last round of ping-pong, a concession was made on youth diversion orders in the other place and we welcome that. We are disappointed that the Government have not made suitable concessions on fixed penalty notices. However, we do not seek to force that to a vote this evening. We hope to work with the Government and we will pursue other avenues.

The shadow Minister set out the case very well for the motion on the proscription of Iran-linked groups. Recent activities in this country give us further cause for concern. The rise in antisemitic sentiment on our streets and the way in which Iran is clearly seeking to foment discontent on our streets by funding activities that further antisemitic hatred and terrorist outrages should give us pause for thought. I would hope that Members on both sides of the House recognise that—I know that they do. Even though the Government are clearly not going to vote for the motion this evening, we will.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope that we are here debating this Bill for the last time. I know that Government Members earnestly want to see the Bill enacted so that we can deliver safer streets for all our communities. I thank the Liberal Democrats for not pushing their amendments to a vote on this occasion.

On the issue of the IRGC, I have been clear that no responsible Government who put the safety and security of the country first can give a running commentary on whether or not this organisation will be proscribed, and it is time to close down this debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) was absolutely right to mention the Jewish community; we are all deeply concerned by what we have seen happen to our Jewish friends and colleagues across the country in recent days, particularly in London. We are doing all we can to ensure that our Jewish community is kept safe. As the hon. Lady will know, we are investing to ensure that we have protections for synagogues and other Jewish spaces where we need it, and we are working with them to do everything that we can. The hon. Lady is right on that matter—I agree with her on it.

However, as to the question of whether the Government can be told in this place that we must immediately proscribe an organisation—that is not the way that this Government work. It is not the way that any Government have worked. I respectfully suggest to the other place and to Members in this place that the time has come to call it a day and to let this Bill pass.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G.

After Clause 190

Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.—(Sarah Jones.)